On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 02:54:04PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 03.01.2014 08:17, schrieb Adam Williamson: > > On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 02:48 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> Steve Clark wrote: > >>> Also at least yum stood for something - Yellowdog Updater, Modified - as > >>> opposed to being some nonsensical conglomeration of letters. The only > >>> thing I am aware of that dnf means is "did not finish". > >> > >> The point of this thread is that the development apparently indeed Did Not > >> Finish. ;-) > > > > And it's an astoundingly pointless point, given that it was prompted by > > a post from its developer asking people to test it ahead of it being > > *potentially* included in Fedora as the default package manager *in more > > than a year's time*. > > > > Clearly, he knows it isn't ready to replace yum yet. If he thought it > > was, he'd be filing a Change to replace yum with dnf, not writing a blog > > post trying to get slightly wider testing. > > the point where the statements what DNF all does not need and not that it > is not yet written, the point is that he meant it is not needed at all > > that's a bad attitude for somebody going out to replace perfectly > working software over the time > > > This is possibly the most useless thread I've ever seen on devel@, and > > that's some strong competition > > that must be why while this thread was running "keep_cache" started to come back > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046244 > > be careful with the word "useless" - you may be the same way wrong as *many* > developers are wrong with their assumptions about real world usecases > > the only useless in this thread are some funny guys making funny posts > about names instead be quiet in case they have nothing to say I apologize for making this thread perceived to be useless by my remarks on dnf naming. I think this is an important thread and agree with most of the issues reported with dnf as it currently stands. I think it is important to bring up these issues now, a year in advance, especially since that is exactly what was asked by the dnf developer. But I also think naming is important, and that gratuitous renaming of an important piece of user-visible software functionality that makes up part of the sysadmin's user interface should be avoided without good reason, and more thought should be put into changing this user interface if it is deemed necessary or desirable. Names matter, and using more generic names or names that at least have some recognizable meaning facilitates the learning curve and understanding of the proposed change. Do we really want to create a Fedora-specific arcane lore of command names that are hard to remember, or would the project and larger Linux community as a whole be better served by a command-line user interface that makes some logical sense? Don't you think people would have objected if systemd was called "gharvakjs" instead? Or if the systemctl command was called "uirweun"? Or if someone came along and decided to make a better "ls" command but called it "vb" instead? While these are absurd examples, it does illustrate why naming is important. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
